ORDER

l. This special leave petition arises out of and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 10-5-1994 of the High Court of Madras made in WMP No. 13629 of 1994 in WP No. 8973 of 1994.

2. In the said writ petition, a political party contesting the two bye-elections in the State assailed the constitutional validity of Order No. 3/8/94-J.S. II dated 13-1-1994, made by the Election Commission imposing certain restrictions on the duration for the use of loudspeakers mounted on mobile vehicles for the election campaigns. The relevant and operative part of the Commissions order which is in paragraph 3 reads :

"3. After considering all aspects of the matter, the Commissioner, in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, hereby DIRECT that the use of loudspeakers at future elections shall be strictly regulated as follows :

(i) The use of loudspeakers fitted on vehicles of any kind whatsoever for electioneering purposes during the entire election period starting from the date of announcement of election and ending with the date of declaration of result shall be permitted only between 08.00 a.m. and 07.00 p.m. No moving loudspeakers shall be permitted to be used before 8.00 a.m. and after 7.00 p.m. in any area.

(ii) If for the purpose of any public meeting or processions any loudspeakers which are fully static are to be used beyond the said hours specific prior written permission shall be obtained from the Government authorities concerned ...."

3. The following reasons are set out as justification for the promulgation of these restrictions :

"All political parties, candidates and their workers, supporters and sympathisers use loudspeakers for their electioneering campaigns. These loudspeakers are not only used from fixed rostrums but also used mounted/fitted on vehicles like trucks, tempos, cars, taxies, vans, three-wheeler scooters, cycle-rickshaws etc. These vehicles move on all roads, streets and lanes and also go around villages, basties, mohallas, colonies, localities with the loudspeakers broadcasting at very great volume. This results in serious noise pollution and causes great disturbance to the peace and tranquillity of the general public. The student community, in particular, gets seriously disturbed as their studies are badly hampered because the loudspeakers start blaring from very early hours in the morning and continue to do so throughout the day and till extremely late hours in the night."

(emphasis supplied)

4. On an interlocutory application for stay made in the writ petition, the High Court was persuaded to the view that there was a prima facie case made out and that an interlocutory order of stay of the operation of the impugned order was required to be passed. The Election Commission of India seeks special leave to appeal against the order of stay.

5. We have heard Shri R.K. Garg, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India, and Shri A.K. Sen and Shri Ashok H. Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. We grant special leave.

6. In support of the order of the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen and Shri Ashok H. Desai strenuously urged that the essential question is not whether these restrictions are salutary and beneficial and promote the comfort, happiness and well-being of the citizens in the locality but really whether the Election Commission even with the widest amplitude of the reservoir of its powers contained in Article 324 of the Constitution, could be said to be the authority to promote and ensure these otherwise well-meant measures of public comfort and well-being. It is urged, for instance, that respecting the facilities for the student community to pursue studies in a quiet and tranquil atmosphere etc., however laudable and desirable they might otherwise be, the question is as to the power of the Election Commission to appropriate to itself these police powers and constitute itself the guardian of these values. The a